5 ms·

I think more important is the reduction in poverty world-wide. "Inequality" has always felt a bit like moving the goalpost.

by gedy 4y ago

nine_k 4y ago
It's very easy to make (almost) everyone equally poor; Communist regimes tried that, mostly with disastrous results. I don't care about income inequality too much. I care about the two extremes: * How bad is the situation of the poorest, can they still live with any decency if they honestly choose to. A society should care about that, if not due to its member being kind and humane, then just due to reasons of self-preservation. * How powerful the richest become. It's hard to talk about anything like democracy or preserving liberties if extremely well-moneyed interests can seriously affect government and especially law. If these two extremes are kept within reason, I don't mind if anyone makes 1000x than I do.
- xeyownt 4y ago
  Well I do. I cannot imagine any worthwhile society where someone would be entitled to earn 1000 times the average. 10 times is certainly a common-sense maximum. If his only motivation for contributing to the society is to be in the 10-1000 range, I'm pretty sure the society will not miss much his contribution.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    An honest question: why do you care? What's your business? What downsides you see? If somebody makes enough to allow founding a new SpaceX, or a new Intel, or a new network of public libraries [1], or a new medical research center [2], I don't see why that would be bad. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institut...
    - tmnvix 4y ago
      While it's true that 'wealth' isn't directly correlated with claims on our world's natural resources (e.g. 'intellectual property' is included), largely it is. I would prefer not to live in a society where control of our natural resources (which nobody 'created') is concentrated in proportionally fewer and fewer hands. That to me is what economic inequality means.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Nobody is going to propose that income should be capped 1000x minimum wage even though that is rational because wealthy people now have an interest in paying poor people more if they want to get richer themselves.

I think more important is the reduction in poverty world-wide. "Inequality" has always felt a bit like moving the goalpost.

by gedy 4y ago

I think more important is the reduction in poverty world-wide. "Inequality" has always felt a bit like moving the goalpost.

nine_k 4y ago

It's very easy to make (almost) everyone equally poor; Communist regimes tried that, mostly with disastrous results. I don't care about income inequality too much. I care about the two extremes: * How bad is the situation of the poorest, can they still live with any decency if they honestly choose to. A society should care about that, if not due to its member being kind and humane, then just due to reasons of self-preservation. * How powerful the richest become. It's hard to talk about anything like democracy or preserving liberties if extremely well-moneyed interests can seriously affect government and especially law. If these two extremes are kept within reason, I don't mind if anyone makes 1000x than I do.

xeyownt 4y ago
Well I do. I cannot imagine any worthwhile society where someone would be entitled to earn 1000 times the average. 10 times is certainly a common-sense maximum. If his only motivation for contributing to the society is to be in the 10-1000 range, I'm pretty sure the society will not miss much his contribution.
- nine_k 4y ago
  An honest question: why do you care? What's your business? What downsides you see? If somebody makes enough to allow founding a new SpaceX, or a new Intel, or a new network of public libraries [1], or a new medical research center [2], I don't see why that would be bad. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institut...
  - tmnvix 4y ago
    While it's true that 'wealth' isn't directly correlated with claims on our world's natural resources (e.g. 'intellectual property' is included), largely it is. I would prefer not to live in a society where control of our natural resources (which nobody 'created') is concentrated in proportionally fewer and fewer hands. That to me is what economic inequality means.
imtringued 4y ago
Nobody is going to propose that income should be capped 1000x minimum wage even though that is rational because wealthy people now have an interest in paying poor people more if they want to get richer themselves.